|
|
|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
This is actually an understatement, to me, and it gets to a key difference
between the GPL and BSD licenses. Okay, so that last is a bit of a stretch, but
the GPL not only encourages copying and tweaking, but it also ensures that
commercialized tweaks are released into the GPL to further software development.
The GPL is, in a way, a very restrictive license, but mainly in that it is
commercialization with a different investment structure. In conventional
business, a company pays money for a license. With the GPL, a company would pay
in the fruits of developmental adaptation.
Regards,
mc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darrellb on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
I would say that it doesn't matter what SUN's intentions were with
regards to the Java *language*. How do you copyright a language? Not words in
the language, not a description of the language, but the *language*
itself? Part of the dispute is over what is *part of the
language* and what is not. Since it is undisputed that the Java language is
open, if the 37 accused APIs are *part of the language* then the APIs are open,
too. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Isn't this just about the language not being a trade secret, rather than about
Sun releasing the Java source code under GPL?
I mean, if the assumption is that programming languages cannot be copyrighted,
and the language has been published to be used freely by all (which Sun had
claimed before and Oracle does not seem deny). Then why should anyone reasonably
believe that the SSO (which is believed to be a vital part of this particular
language) required copyright licensing?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
